|
|
We in Sioux Falls tend to think we’re at least somewhat cosmopolitan. But then there’s those things that tend to blow our cover and establish that maybe, when you get right down to it, we still aren’t all that sophisticated.
The latest case in point? This headline on the local daily’s web page today: “World-renowned handbell ringer coming to Sioux Falls.”
To put it rather bluntly, I am not the type who wants to go back to the land; I am the type who wants to go back to the hotel.
Fran Lebowitz, Social Studies
The lies continue. But, surprisingly, a bit of truth escaped from Amendment E proponents Tuesday. It must have been a mistake.
In a debate in Mitchell Tuesday night, Jake Hanes repeated the lie that pops out almost every time an Amendment E supporter speaks. According to the article in the Mitchell Daily Republic:
It [the amendment] says the word ‘judge’ 35 times in the amendment — no less than 35 times,” Hanes said. “There are specific violations of the law that a judge has to do. County commission, school board (members) act as a group. They cannot individually act and harm (another) individual person,” Hanes said. “I feel it is just a scare tactic brought up by our opponents.”
Hanes evidently forgot that just the day before South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier told another South Dakota newspaper that, if he had it to do over again “he would throw out the provisions for board and commission members.”
Maybe one of these days J.A.I.L.ers will own up to the fact that the amendment defines “judge” to mean “all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity” and the fact that encompasses the very entities Hanes lists. And perhaps some day J.A.I.L.ers will admit that the “specific violations” are so broad they include actions a school board or similar body would take. Yet I’m sure it will be in another galaxy and time that J.A.I.L.ers will be honest enough to admit that the whole purpose of the proposal is specifically intended to hold such people liable individually.
But Hanes actually told a bit of truth. He admitted that if the amendment passes, “I know this probably will end up going to court.” That admission alone raises an interesting question. Section 22 of the amendment says it is judicial misconduct for any judge that might be affected by J.A.I.L. to hear a case challenging it. In other words, at best, any challenges to Amendment E would have to be brought in federal court. But since federal courts have only limited jurisdiction over state law matters, it appears the amendment is drafted so as to try to preclude challenges to it.
Finally, observant readers may recall that Stegmeier wrote to the Attorney General and complained about the explanation of the amendment that would appear on the ballot. One of his complaints at the time? That the explanation said the amendment “will likely be challenged in court.”
Lies are never innocent.
Albert Camus, Caligula
While I tend to avoid these types of things, with the election just two weeks away I am going to break from tradition and post what the media would call a PSA.
The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the group heading up the effort to overturn South Dakota’s abortion ban, is planning a “Stand Up for Choice visibility event” this Friday.
Persons interested in participating can meet at the organization’s office at 4 p.m. Friday. The meet up will serve to coordinate the event, such as giving people the location and arranging any necessary transportation and the like. The group’s office is located at 109 N. Main in Sioux Falls.
When people come together in large numbers they become aware of their strength.
Adam Zamoyski, Holy Madness
For years (if not decades), the Watertown Public Opinion has run a “Straw Ballot” on election issues and candidates. The ballot is printed in the paper and “voters” have to mail or bring in an original, not a photocopy. It has been highly accurate over that time. While the Straw Ballot may not nail the percentages, it has been an excellent barometer of the ultimate outcome on both issues and races.
That said, today’s Public Opinion might cause Amendment E supporters more than a bit of heartburn and perhaps even lead them to consider asking the Zogby organization for a refund. (Oh, I forgot. The J.A.I.L.ers had Zogby ask a question about an imaginary measure that isn’t on the ballot.) The paper’s editorial page reports today:
#3. Constitutional Amendment E – To implement the judicial accountability amendment.
14% Yes
86% No
Now the P.O. notes that this is not a scientific poll but the results of the other ballot measures seem to fit with what we’ve been hearing throughout the year. The results here also may be influenced in part by the fact that, at least in my opinion, the paper has spent a bit more time looking at J.A.I.L. and informing its readers than some other newspapers.
The numbers also appear consistent with the poll No on E released today. It shows 46 percent of voters oppose Amendment E, 42 percent are undecided and only 12 percent say they support the measure. While the undecideds are high, the polling firm noted that “the more South Dakotans learn about Amendment E, the more they reject it.” Thus, even a split of the undecided gets the no vote up to 67 percent and, as I indicated, the Watertown paper has done more than most in educating readers. Frankly, I could care less what the final percentage breakdown is as long as J.A.I.L. goes to the dung heap on which it belongs.
I don’t want to steal the paper’s thunder on the other ballot issues so if you’re interested, you can get the rest of the results at the newspaper’s web site (registration required).
Thinking isn’t agreeing or disagreeing. That’s voting.
Robert Frost
Seems like the Amendment E campaign has a problem figuring out which script they’re reading from — or maybe its just that the script varies from place to place.
On Sunday, KELO TV’s “Inside KELOLAND” took a look at Amendment C (the so-called “gay marriage” amendment) and Amendment E. Good ol’ Jake Hanes was the “citizen” supporting Amendment E. (Some time maybe the media should ask how long “Jake” has been a South Dakotan, where he came from and whether he left any unresolved business behind.) Hanes again trotted out the lie that J.A.I.L. only applies to judges and that any claims it applies to other government bodies are just a scare tactic manufactured by opponents.
Today, South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier appeared in the Pierre Capital Journal. The article dealt with Stegmeier’s ties to a man who wants a ballot measure to attack the “communist aggressors in the Democrat and Republican parties.” (You’ll be happy to know that Stegmeier “is becoming very popular with the patriot community.” Run a Google or other search on the “patriot community” and you’ll get an idea of the extremist groups that want South Dakota as a test tube.)
But what’s relevant for present purposes is the last two paragraphs of the article:
Stegmeier also said that if he proposed the J.A.I.L. Amendment again in South Dakota, he would throw out the provisions for board and commission members.“Next time there won’t be those things on there for them to attack, so I wonder what they’ll come up with in opposition to it then,” Stegmeier said.
(Emphasis added).
So, Hanes says the measure doesn’t apply to other government bodies. Stegmeier once again admits it does. What’s perhaps worst about their inability to stick to the same story is the media’s failure to call them on this point.
Nothing that isn’t a real crime makes a man appear so contemptible and little in the eyes of the world as inconsistency.
Joseph Addison, The Spectator
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
